I understand all the reasons why they're taking his kids away, and he should probably stop having them until he gets his life back together. However, I will say this:

Because of his sex crimes, he was banned from attending high school and instead took correspondence courses, alone at the kitchen table in the group home. He gave up after Grade 9. "You'd think they'd want me interacting with other human beings, learning how to act properly and respect people."

There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

xanadian:Car_Ramrod: There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

This is pretty much what I'm stuck on. They doomed him from the get-go. Blame Canada, indeed.

Also...what, exactly, DID the guy do at 12? Or dare I ask?

/they listed the charges, but not what he actually DID

They couldn't even keep pets alive. And if the pet died, they didn't even know how to throw them away!

i don't know about the pedophilia considering he was just a child himself when he allegedly committed them, but

They once lived in a tent at a trailer park.A child-protection agent reported in 2011 that the state of their home was "deplorable, smelling of urine, feces and other unknown smells and extreme filth."

There was no heat at the home, either.They've had other problems at home too, with authorities in 2010 seizing around 30 animals from their house. They removed gerbils, mice, rats, snakes, dogs (including one that was in such bad health it had to be put down) and cats.Some of the animals found in the house had been dead for a while.

jvl:Car_Ramrod: Did... did you read the article? Do you disagree with the judge? Or are you just one of those blanket anti-authoritarians that love using the terms "citizen" and "precrime" like you're in an Orwell book? Dude did not deserve to keep his kid; he obviously can't take care of a child if he and his wife can't take care of themselves.

Let me put this in terms even a maroon could understand...

The right to have children and keep them is a Basic Human Right. It's even more fundamental than Free Speech. You do not fark with rights like these without one hell of a lot of reason to do so.

Something he did at 12 so we take away his children? Fark you. Doesn't take care of his pets so we take away his children? Fark you harder. He is a drunk? Don't make me fark you again! Which part of "Basic Human Right" was not understood? Now, if the Judge is basing his decisions on something not mentioned in the article like what happened with the first baby, then I'm okay with this.

But you do not execute a person for not taking care of his pets. You do not remove the right of Free Speech and Free Association for not taking care of pets. You do not remove the Right to Reproduce for not taking care of pets.

Rights. Sometimes the word Right is abused with all the "it's my Right to do xxx" which is heard over often in society. This is not one of those cases. This is one of the Fundamental Rights.

What about the right of the child to grow up in a clean, safe, heated home, where it doesn't reek of feces and dead animals?

ReapTheChaos:Neither of these two should be raising kids if even half of what the article describes is correct. Sounds to me like the sex offense is just the icing on the cake so to speak.

I take it as any excuse to keep them from abusing another kid which from what I read in the article is just fine. The couple I know had me to read them the letter they got from social services as to why they were being investigated,this was before the infant got the black eye,and it said "rotting,moldy food on the counters,food packages,dirty dishes...ect." Basically their house was farking filthy,they both constantly smelled like body odor,she neglected and beat on her disabled mother after the kids were taken and when her mother was taken from the house neither of them were allowed to see her at the hospital because she was under protective custody. I know all that because that poor old woman called my house from the hospital and I talked to a nurse. She had hemorrhaging behind her eyes,I guessing one of them tried to smother her,a broken nose,a black eye and when they EMT's arrived all she was dressed in was a wet dirty shirt. People who treat children or the elderly that way need executed cause there isn't any hope for them not being such pieces of shiat.

Lollipop165:I'm kinda torn on this one - they haven't even had the chance to parent.

But that being said I understand why the government would feel its in the best interest of their children. These guys certainly haven' had a good track record.

Did you even read the farking article? There was a lot more to it than "a lack of a good track record"

Also, you don't get a "chance" at parenting after you molest children. No farking way. One and done, just like murder - you don't get a second chance, go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200 labeled and segregated from society as is necessary and possible until your sick, sorry ass dies. Giving people like that a 'second chance' is not what society needs.

jvl:Lionel Mandrake: Sounds like he lost the kids for what he's been doing, beginning at age 12.

The Judge said so. Judge is God; he decides what is right and proper. Judge gives your children away for permanent adoption for your precrimes. You will obey citizen. The Judge knows best, right?

Did... did you read the article? Do you disagree with the judge? Or are you just one of those blanket anti-authoritarians that love using the terms "citizen" and "precrime" like you're in an Orwell book? Dude did not deserve to keep his kid; he obviously can't take care of a child if he and his wife can't take care of themselves.

Poor bastard never really had a chance, did he? Though I could be wrong, I suspect they keep having kids not so much from a sense of "maybe this time" as from having such poor judgement that they do not use birth control.

Society failed him, and continues to fail him. At the same time, given the sort of living environment he tends to wind up in, can society chance the kids with them? Probably not. However, if he were to take counselling, get cleaned up, find some sort of work where his past wouldn't haunt him, then maybe.

Pure guesswork, but based on the way they are treating this, I think that when he was 12, his victims were MUCH younger than him. That would account for the extreme bias.

The house conditions, dead & hoarded animals, no heat, alcohol problems and being on house arrest, and forced to stay separated from the wife for weeks, for a domestic fight - after which she intends to stay with him - would probably have gotten the children taken without that particular offense. However, even for the sex crime it appears they were considering recent poor assessments, not just the existence of the past record.

With that pile of problems though, it'd just be a game of what happens to the kid first. Did they not get the message the first three times that they may need to try to fix some of those issues?

Because of his sex crimes, he was banned from attending high school and instead took correspondence courses, alone at the kitchen table in the group home. He gave up after Grade 9. "You'd think they'd want me interacting with other human beings, learning how to act properly and respect people."

"And in other news, four pre-teens were arrested and charged as adults in possession of child pornograhy for sexting each other....."

Car_Ramrod:There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

This is pretty much what I'm stuck on. They doomed him from the get-go. Blame Canada, indeed.

Regardless of how they got that way, some people really are too damaged to be even half-decent parents. I'm inclined to believe that his "sex crime" at age 12 wasn't as bad as people seem to think, but the bit about the squalid house with the dead dog, the part about him drinking and taking his anger out on his wife, and her repeated choice to stay with him and get pregnant by him, would incline me to believe that they shouldn't be trusted with kids even if I knew nothing of his life before age 18.

Rik01:....Everything that I read that they consider bad can have come from the way he's been treated for most of his life. I've known many a 'bad' kid turn their lives around after school, especially once they got married and had kids. Suddenly, they're average citizens. They're keeping jobs, knocked off the dope, stopped the partying and decided that living like a pig was no longer fun..And something in this article indicates that these people are "average citizens" who have/are "keeping jobs, knocked off the dope, stopped the partying and decided that living like a pig was no longer fun "?

Again: I'll bet the farm that kid #1 was taken from the home because of abuse/neglect/sanitary conditions and the criminal history was only then brought to the attention of the courts as a part of usual checks and whatnot. I highly doubt they showed up one day to take the kid because of something he did when he was 12.

SlothB77:i don't know about the pedophilia considering he was just a child himself when he allegedly committed them, but

They once lived in a tent at a trailer park.A child-protection agent reported in 2011 that the state of their home was "deplorable, smelling of urine, feces and other unknown smells and extreme filth."

There was no heat at the home, either.They've had other problems at home too, with authorities in 2010 seizing around 30 animals from their house. They removed gerbils, mice, rats, snakes, dogs (including one that was in such bad health it had to be put down) and cats.Some of the animals found in the house had been dead for a while.

isn't an environment to raise kids in.

Yeah, this. I've got my doubts that a juvenile offense, of any kind, should basically make somebody lifetime-ineligible to have kids.

However, there seems to be a mountain of evidence that there was plenty of other reasons they were unfit parents, and were providing an unfit environment.

Mikey1969: ....Hell, for all we know, he played Dr with a buddy, was afraid of catching 'Gay' from it and told the other kid he'd kick his ass if he said anything. We don't know because they list a bunch of negative shiat and leave it to the readers to judge him. I don't know what his story is, but TFA is a straight up hit piece.

Good point, they should have some sort of authority that is privy to the details oversee their situation and make sure they are living in a manner that is not neglectful or abusive.

Don't you wonder why the first kid was taken away? I'd bet you a cookie that it was because of abuse and neglect.

Dead-Guy:So the penalty of sexual experimentation at age 12 includes blocking from public schools, public humiliation that prevents him from getting a job, and having no children of his own. Ever. Now, he's 29 (17 years later). I don't think that at that 29, I felt the same way about anything I felt when I was 12 years old, especially with regards to sexuality.

Those offenses are describing a single scenario where a 12 year old asked (or directed), someone under 16 to touch him, and actually touched THEM in some way determined to be sexual. The sheer fact that this occurred, would land the "sexual assault" charge.Then later it's possible he told the victim to not tell on them, in a threatening manner, apparently with some sort of weapon at hand.

I say "later" because the charge wasn't "sexual assault with a weapon", which under Canadian law means that it was a separate event somehow. For the record, it also wasn't "causing bodily harm" so I guess he didn't actually use the weapon in question, or it was a pretty lame weapon to begin with.

Granted, the guy has other issues in his life, primarily stemming from this assault, it would seem. However, when you now take this story, and apply it to a scenario where some kid maliciously lies about an attack of this nature.. you can see that there's something(s) wrong with the system.

I agree that he doesn't seem like the ideal parent in the making, but if he had agreed to take those tests, and scored reasonably higher than a sociopath or something, I'd like to think that at least his ability to have children of his own would be restored, but this doesn't seem to be the case... or am I missing something?

........OR

He raped/assaulted a child, the judge knows it and is acting in the best interest of the children.

Hate to break it to you but there are some really terrible people out there and around 12 is usually when they start exhibiting those behaviors.

Dead-Guy:I agree that he doesn't seem like the ideal parent in the making, but if he had agreed to take those tests, and scored reasonably higher than a sociopath or something, I'd like to think that at least his ability to have children of his own would be restored, but this doesn't seem to be the case... or am I missing something?

I do believe you're missing the part where they lived in a filthy house with dead animals and couldn't even take care of a dog or cat.

Don't see a problem. Convicted child molester, recently reassessed and confirmed at risk for re-offense. Married to person with addiction issues. Living in squalor that would present a risk to any child, let alone a baby.

xanadian:Car_Ramrod: There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

This is pretty much what I'm stuck on. They doomed him from the get-go. Blame Canada, indeed.

Also...what, exactly, DID the guy do at 12? Or dare I ask?

/they listed the charges, but not what he actually DID

Sealed records. It must have been something pretty heinous to be the primary reason though, so I'm imagining raping a preschooler, not pissing on the fence. But I don't know, the prosecution can't say, and he certainly won't tell how bad (or not) it really was.

Satanic_Hamster:You'd think he would have noticed a pattern after the 2nd or 3rd kid.

"it's the oddest thing; I have a kid and the government takes it away immediately. What are the odds of it happening a fourth time?"

I'm just waiting for him to be armed and waiting for the 5th time.

OtherLittleGuy:Because of his sex crimes, he was banned from attending high school and instead took correspondence courses, alone at the kitchen table in the group home. He gave up after Grade 9. "You'd think they'd want me interacting with other human beings, learning how to act properly and respect people."

"And in other news, four pre-teens were arrested and charged as adults in possession of child pornograhy for sexting each other....."

Well...they probably didn't have the technology 17 years ago, but yeah, I'm wondering if what he did was along those lines. Or he diddled another 12-year-old while *being* 12 himself. The weapons charge thrown into the mix makes me wonder, though...

/unless that was something that happened AFTER he was 12, AFTER the government f*cked him up

TFA: They've had other problems at home too, with authorities in 2010 seizing around 30 animals from their house. They removed gerbils, mice, rats, snakes, dogs (including one that was in such bad health it had to be put down) and cats.

And you know what, I don't know Canada's laws/system...but I do know in every single goddamned case in the US I've seen where parents have biatched the state took away their kids for no good reason and they're fighting to get them back...they can list the amount of things they have done to comply with the court. They've gone to all counseling, they've moved, they've done whatever they were told to do, to try to regain their kids.

These two asshats didn't do squat really, beyond the very initial phase then they were done complying.

And ignoring whatever happened when he was 12, without that based purely on everything else? Those kids are better off elsewhere. Those two idiots can't even take care of themselves.

On a related note, reproduction combined with child-rearing are, together, a human right.

I very strongly disagree. To employ this phrase without sarcasm or facetiousness for once, won't somebody think of the children? Don't you agree that a kid has a right not to be reared by a drunk father with anger problems and an imbecilic mother in a house with dead dogs?

jvl:Car_Ramrod: Did... did you read the article? Do you disagree with the judge? Or are you just one of those blanket anti-authoritarians that love using the terms "citizen" and "precrime" like you're in an Orwell book? Dude did not deserve to keep his kid; he obviously can't take care of a child if he and his wife can't take care of themselves.

Let me put this in terms even a maroon could understand...

The right to have children and keep them is a Basic Human Right. It's even more fundamental than Free Speech. You do not fark with rights like these without one hell of a lot of reason to do so.

Something he did at 12 so we take away his children? Fark you. Doesn't take care of his pets so we take away his children? Fark you harder. He is a drunk? Don't make me fark you again! Which part of "Basic Human Right" was not understood? Now, if the Judge is basing his decisions on something not mentioned in the article like what happened with the first baby, then I'm okay with this.

But you do not execute a person for not taking care of his pets. You do not remove the right of Free Speech and Free Association for not taking care of pets. You do not remove the Right to Reproduce for not taking care of pets.

Rights. Sometimes the word Right is abused with all the "it's my Right to do xxx" which is heard over often in society. This is not one of those cases. This is one of the Fundamental Rights.

Yes, but when somebody is not taking care of this kids, as this guy and his wife couldn't possibly have been doing, somebody has to step in to protect them. You do not have a fundamental right to abuse a child, period.

I May Be Crazy But...:If that's something that can be taught later in life, do it. I think it would be great. In the meantime, he needs to not be responsible for another living critter.

From what I've seen people who behave like this never learn,not even when they are court ordered to take parenting classes and have psych evaluations. The woman in the couple I mentioned has told me before that she only feels like an adult when she has kids or is pregnant. That biatch is 33 years old. She should be able to feel like an adult all the time without neglecting or abusing kids but I guess not.

Mikey1969:I think the fact that he coulldn't attend school starting at Grade 9 may have really farked up his ability to function socially(Which would include parenting children). You do a lot of growing psychologically and emotionally during those 4 years of high school. I think this would also be a situation for some kind of assistance, I don't know, the 'learn how to be a functional member of society' version of rehab or something?

If that's something that can be taught later in life, do it. I think it would be great. In the meantime, he needs to not be responsible for another living critter.

I'm not saying the kids ought to be removed to punish the two of them (for being losers, I guess?). I just think leaving the kids would be bad enough for them that it's the better thing to do. And if there's a way to teach these folks how to live better, then that's the RIGHT thing to do.

I think the fact that he coulldn't attend school starting at Grade 9 may have really farked up his ability to function socially(Which would include parenting children). You do a lot of growing psychologically and emotionally during those 4 years of high school.

I dropped out of school in 8th grade. I didn't want kids even then and never had any before getting sterilized at age 43, which was probably a good thing. But lack of high school education by itself should not disqualify people from becoming parents.

Mikey1969:The point is that it has no details on what he did at 12, why he's charged with those particular crimes or anything, it just makes sure to point out over and over that he's a "bad guy", but we don't really know, do we? Irresponsible? Yep. Bad parent? Sounds like it, but they're making him sound like a 12 year old Ted Bundy.

For perspective on those crimes of his, keep in mind that in the US, if you tell people to move across the room in a standoff situation, it becomes kidnapping.

Hell, for all we know, he played Dr with a buddy, was afraid of catching 'Gay' from it and told the other kid he'd kick his ass if he said anything. We don't know because they list a bunch of negative shiat and leave it to the readers to judge him. I don't know what his story is, but TFA is a straight up hit piece.

So leave out what he did at 12. Maybe replace it (whatever 'it' is) with "got in trouble with the law" to still help explain why it's hard for him to get a job and he never got an education. And yeah, the piece is about the opposite of sympathetic. I still say it sounds like the judge did the right thing.

It's a sad state of affairs that he and his wife can't figure out how to live in better conditions. But until they do, those kids aren't in a safe environment with them. If there's family to put the kids with so they have a chance to visit the kids, that'd be great. But taking the kids is a better option than leaving them, as I see it.I wish there was a different option but I don't know what it would be.

Okay, usually, I think forced sterilization is a terrible thing, but damn, maybe this is a case where it would be the way to go. Or if you don't like that, how about voluntary sterilization with an incentive. Give the guy $2k and an ice bag to get those tubes tied. Offer the lady $10k and a bingo ticket.

jvl:Car_Ramrod: Did... did you read the article? Do you disagree with the judge? Or are you just one of those blanket anti-authoritarians that love using the terms "citizen" and "precrime" like you're in an Orwell book? Dude did not deserve to keep his kid; he obviously can't take care of a child if he and his wife can't take care of themselves.

Let me put this in terms even a maroon could understand...

The right to have children and keep them is a Basic Human Right. It's even more fundamental than Free Speech. You do not fark with rights like these without one hell of a lot of reason to do so.

Something he did at 12 so we take away his children? Fark you. Doesn't take care of his pets so we take away his children? Fark you harder. He is a drunk? Don't make me fark you again! Which part of "Basic Human Right" was not understood? Now, if the Judge is basing his decisions on something not mentioned in the article like what happened with the first baby, then I'm okay with this.

But you do not execute a person for not taking care of his pets. You do not remove the right of Free Speech and Free Association for not taking care of pets. You do not remove the Right to Reproduce for not taking care of pets.

Rights. Sometimes the word Right is abused with all the "it's my Right to do xxx" which is heard over often in society. This is not one of those cases. This is one of the Fundamental Rights.

Maybe you should allow him to babysit your children to prove he is capable of exercising his "Basic Human Rights".

No, all his record shows is that they tagged him with everything they could. Once again, context...

This is like the sex offender registry, when you freak out because your neighbor is on there, and then you find out that he got busted pissing in an alley after leaving the bar one night. This story is short on details, but LONG on condemnation.

Are you mental? There is a lot more information there to support them not having kids even if you remove the conviction. Hell, the fact that they keep having kids knowing they will be taken away shows what state of mind they are in.

I can't believe people here are wondering "what happened" with that list of charges inferring it may have been some sort of petty kid on kid thing.

I'm no fan of the nanny state either but from the sounds of it this guy would be abusing and neglecting the kid before he got home from the hospital.

foxyshadis:xanadian: Car_Ramrod: There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

This is pretty much what I'm stuck on. They doomed him from the get-go. Blame Canada, indeed.

Also...what, exactly, DID the guy do at 12? Or dare I ask?

/they listed the charges, but not what he actually DID

Sealed records. It must have been something pretty heinous to be the primary reason though, so I'm imagining raping a preschooler, not pissing on the fence. But I don't know, the prosecution can't say, and he certainly won't tell how bad (or not) it really was.

My guess is raping an infant. That's why the judge won't let him have a baby in the house. Assault + invite + interferences could be from one incident. If he grabbed any object, that could be assault with a weapon.

So, let's pull a guess out of thin air. Babysitting, rapes the infant / toddler and commits the assault, invite, and interference. Parents figure it out / bust in the act, he grabs a widget and says, "I'll kill you if you call the police."

Car_Ramrod:I understand all the reasons why they're taking his kids away, and he should probably stop having them until he gets his life back together. However, I will say this:

Because of his sex crimes, he was banned from attending high school and instead took correspondence courses, alone at the kitchen table in the group home. He gave up after Grade 9. "You'd think they'd want me interacting with other human beings, learning how to act properly and respect people."

There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

Yeah, I'm actually kinda curious what he did to deserve being ostracized so thoroughly. Basically, I wonder if I agree or not.

For my money though, if the guy did something so horrible, why is he alive at all? And if it wasn't bad enough to die for, why is it such a big deal that he can't even be around peers? Yes, you asshole, that is exactly how parenting works.

Also... "Essentially, this court is being asked to take a chance and allow (the couple) to use (the girl) as a parental training tool," the judge ruled. "Yes, you asshole, that is exactly how parenting works.

That article just kept going and going and going. A tent in a trailer park? 30 animals? Feces, urine? Yeah, no, they should probably both be sterilized by the government, and I say that as a libertarian.

Seat's Taken:This really bothers me, and I've been in a similar situation as the guy in the article... Land is expensive, I can only afford a trailer home, which I rent. I'd love to live off my own land, grow vegetables and fruit and be self-sufficient. If the fruit or vegetables don't get enough water, if they die, does anyone care? I don't have land, but I still have a farm. My gerbils, the guinea pigs, cats, and bunnies, they sustain me. I give them food (sometimes), they reproduce, and then I have nutrients to feed the misses and I over the winter. Some of them don't do so well. Some die in a corner, under a pile of laundry or errant foot, is it really that different from a row of corn? I'm doing what I can to get by, trying to have kids that can help me tend to the farm, same as the guy in the article. How can I ever make it ahead if they keep stripping me and the misses (I call her our "VP") from our employees?

Pure BS, I know, but in this instance, if you have to eat cats, gerbils, and guinea pigs (I'm ok with you eating bunnies), and can't feed or care for them, then you shouldn't be on the internet, much less paying for an internet connection on your farm. Also, yes. It is much different from a row of corn in many, many, many ways. Oh, and corn isn't hard to grow behind your trailer home on your rented land either.

I know a couple who is going to have their fifth child sometime this year and it will be taken within 30 minutes of birth just like the last one was and the one before that was taken because one of them gave the one month old infant a black eye. I mean after the second or third kid being taken it'd be nice to be able to have these assholes sterilized.

xanadian:Well...they probably didn't have the technology 17 years ago, but yeah, I'm wondering if what he did was along those lines. Or he diddled another 12-year-old while *being* 12 himself. The weapons charge thrown into the mix makes me wonder, though...

If he had sex with a 12 year old as a 12 year old, it wouldn't have even been statutory rape. In Canada, it's only statutory rape if the two parties are more than 2 years apart in age if one of them is under the age of consent. In order to be charged with a sex crime at that age, it has to non-consensual and/or violent. From what the courts are saying, he has a sexually violent past.

As for "giving him a chance to be a parent", I completely agree with the courts. Why would you subject a baby to the possibility of sexual assault just in case the parent has changed? Especially since the rest of their life is such a train wreck. If they want to prove they can be good providers, let them keep an animal alive for it's lifespan before considering children.

I_Am_Weasel:Car_Ramrod: I understand all the reasons why they're taking his kids away, and he should probably stop having them until he gets his life back together. However, I will say this:

Because of his sex crimes, he was banned from attending high school and instead took correspondence courses, alone at the kitchen table in the group home. He gave up after Grade 9. "You'd think they'd want me interacting with other human beings, learning how to act properly and respect people."

There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

The system he would have been charged under has been replaced, so it's quite possible that the sentencing would no longer include such things. I am, however, far too lazy to research just what the penalty would be today.

Well that was 17 years ago, and how the state and people in general view juvenile justice has changed multiple times since then (hell, it's still changing), so I'm sure it is different. It's a tough spot: you don't want there to be no consequences to their actions, but they are still kids, and you don't want their die to be cast so early.

Car_Ramrod:you don't want there to be no consequences to their actions

Couldn't the consequences include "address whatever the hell fraked him up sufficiently to make him a rapist at age 12"? I'm not saying there should be no punishment, but even if you're against rehabilitation for adults you have to support it for children. If nothing else it's economically inefficient to jail someone for 70 years.

FTA: "Essentially, this court is being asked to take a chance and allow (the couple) to use (the girl) as a parental training tool," the judge ruled.

Oh geez, tell me it's not going to be one of those cases where an 18 y/o slept with his perfectly willing and consenting 17 y/o GF but she had butthurt parents....

They've had other problems at home too, with authorities in 2010 seizing around 30 animals from their house. They removed gerbils, mice, rats, snakes, dogs (including one that was in such bad health it had to be put down) and cats.

I think here even the critter lovers and the GET OFF MAH YERD people can agree on this one - if they can't take care of pets, then they obviously aren't fit to raise a child. I was about to suggest licensing for parents, but considering how poorly everything else is run... :/

So here's my question for this dork, and for everyone here who seems to be white-knighting him and his right to not be pre-convicted for crimes he might not yet commit and all that:

Because of his sex crimes, he was banned from attending high school and instead took correspondence courses, alone at the kitchen table in the group home. He gave up after Grade 9. "You'd think they'd want me interacting with other human beings, learning how to act properly and respect people."

That was SEVENTEEN years ago. He's now 29 (12 + 17 = 29). He's had plenty of time to learn how to act properly and respect people and behave like a normal person. He's no longer a child or even a teenager--he's a grown man. Even if his teenage years were bad because the province of Ottawa overreacted about an innocent game of doctor or whatever--that's been a long time. Could it be that it's not that other people can't leave his past behind him, it's that HE can't leave it behind?

D135:foxyshadis: In typical tabloid fashion, the most outrageous part of the situation is presented first, then followed up by the "oh, yeah, now it all makes sense" bits...

...which then leads into the whole "should some people be chemically castrated?" portion of the article

That was my thought, too. If they're just going to keep taking his kids away why let him have any more? But then I realized it's possible he could someday straighten his shiat out and it wouldn't be fair to impose such a permanent solution.

ImpatientlyUnsympathetic:Mikey1969: ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: I'm not saying its good or right, but when your mother, who hates your husband, takes his side when he divorces you while you're pregnant with another child after an incident with your older child that seems an awful lot like shaken baby? And your mother supports him in his bid to get full custody of that unborn child during the divorce and it works? With the state of our country's family court system and the way they treat fathers? I think its probably much, much different than your daughter having a slip and fall.

Not saying it was wrong, just the "suspected" thing with no actual due process makes me shudder. Shaken babies are no joke, I just see a lot of potential for over-reacting overall in this. Not necessarily in your situation, it's just in general how badly this could possibly go.

Agreed. I would be more uppity and angry about this if it was a father who was denied his rights because of suspicions. Fathers have had a helluva time being treated fairly.

Even in this article, I doubt that the mother is not permitted the option to raise the children without this super star. My cousin was engaged to the mother of his children and they were living together. They had a daughter and another on the way. When she delivered second daughter, she and the newborn baby tested positive for illicit drugs. Custody of the child was not given to my cousin, because he was not intending to leave their shared home with his two children. His mother took custody and my cousin didn't get custody back again for 3 years. But, the key is, he got custody back when he left his fiancée, since she hid the drug habit and then suggested that the child might not be his afterall...

It does seem that the 'father hate' is (very) slowly swinging over in a more father-friendly direction, but it could take forever... They just passed a law in UT(Apparently only state where this was legal) that made it illegal for a mother to fraudulently represent the status of a child to the father. Women would claim the baby had been miscarried or stillborn, then come to Utah and have the baby and raise it, screwing the father out of any rights he would have had, as he thought the child was dead. This was legal to do until this legislative session. With more fathers taking an active interest in their children, and women showing that they aren't all angels, maybe it will end up more fair before I grow old...

This is not something you want to admit while trying to paint yourself as a victim to the media.

What? The fact that at a very important time in your life, both socially and developmentally, the State put you in the school version of solitary confinement? I don't know what he did with who, because the story actually sucks, but this is a truly bullshiat move, and yes, it makes him the victim in that part of it.

No, the fact that he understands the problem lies with him, but thinks that the onus is on others to help him through it. He knows he needs to learn how to act properly and respect other people. Is there anything listed in TFA that would lead you to believe that he is actually taking steps towards this on his own? Because it sounds to me like he just plain gave up.

Honestly, he sounds like my alcoholic father. People should have known he had issues, so they shouldn't have stressed him out.

It was everyone else's fault that he was a drunk, because he was a fragile little flower with no self control and a genuine addiction, but everyone else drove him to drink. It also happens with mental illness too. "I have X disorder, why can't everyone just be more patient and tolerant of me as I emote non-stop and disrupt everyone's life while refusing treatment!"

Mikey1969:ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: But the part where the article said that the LAST THREE of the four children were taken away at the hospital means that the first one was not, right? And they lost that one after having some time to try out their parenting abilities.

Or they weren't on the radar yet. It could be that nobody knew he wasn't supposed to have kids, and realized it when the child was older, and started watching the couple closely after that.

ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: IDK how it works in Canada, but my mom's good friend was immediately given custody of her grandson after her daughter was thought to have shaken her oldest child, her ex-husband was immediately awarded custody of their second child because of what she did to their first child. If she had more children, TX would have taken them away immediately too, even though she didn't actually get charged with a crime (the physical damage was likely, but not conclusively, due to shaking, but it was enough that they couldn't take the risk with more children.)

Sorry, this pisses me off, too. We have due process for a reason. This is part of the reason that I'm terrified any time my 4 year old daughter gets injured. What if I'm "thought" to have done something?

/Yet I got stuck with emotionally and physically abusive adoptive parents for 8 years, and it took my statements to a Group Home house parent years later before the state acted to do anything. Apparently being locked in your room and made to piss in a coffee can is frowned on after the fact.

I'm not saying its good or right, but when your mother, who hates your husband, takes his side when he divorces you while you're pregnant with another child after an incident with your older child that seems an awful lot like shaken baby? And your mother supports him in his bid to get full custody of that unborn child during the divorce and it works? With the state of our country's family court system and the way they treat fathers? I think its probably much, much different than your daughter having a slip and fall.

Hell, my brother was in urgent care for broken bones and stitches at least twice a year from the time he was 2 until he was 16. He broke all of his fingers at least once during that 14 year time period. He broke limbs, got very strange injuries that defy explanation, but no one ever investigated our family. He was diagnosed and treated as a super clumsy kid. He's also exceptionally athletic, so go figure how he can be highly coordinated AND clumsy at the same time...

I May Be Crazy But...:So leave out what he did at 12. Maybe replace it (whatever 'it' is) with "got in trouble with the law" to still help explain why it's hard for him to get a job and he never got an education. And yeah, the piece is about the opposite of sympathetic. I still say it sounds like the judge did the right thing.

It's a sad state of affairs that he and his wife can't figure out how to live in better conditions. But until they do, those kids aren't in a safe environment with them. If there's family to put the kids with so they have a chance to visit the kids, that'd be great. But taking the kids is a better option than leaving them, as I see it.I wish there was a different option but I don't know what it would be.

I think the fact that he coulldn't attend school starting at Grade 9 may have really farked up his ability to function socially(Which would include parenting children). You do a lot of growing psychologically and emotionally during those 4 years of high school. I think this would also be a situation for some kind of assistance, I don't know, the 'learn how to be a functional member of society' version of rehab or something?

ImpatientlyUnsympathetic:But the part where the article said that the LAST THREE of the four children were taken away at the hospital means that the first one was not, right? And they lost that one after having some time to try out their parenting abilities.

Or they weren't on the radar yet. It could be that nobody knew he wasn't supposed to have kids, and realized it when the child was older, and started watching the couple closely after that.

ImpatientlyUnsympathetic:IDK how it works in Canada, but my mom's good friend was immediately given custody of her grandson after her daughter was thought to have shaken her oldest child, her ex-husband was immediately awarded custody of their second child because of what she did to their first child. If she had more children, TX would have taken them away immediately too, even though she didn't actually get charged with a crime (the physical damage was likely, but not conclusively, due to shaking, but it was enough that they couldn't take the risk with more children.)

Sorry, this pisses me off, too. We have due process for a reason. This is part of the reason that I'm terrified any time my 4 year old daughter gets injured. What if I'm "thought" to have done something?

/Yet I got stuck with emotionally and physically abusive adoptive parents for 8 years, and it took my statements to a Group Home house parent years later before the state acted to do anything. Apparently being locked in your room and made to piss in a coffee can is frowned on after the fact.

So the penalty of sexual experimentation at age 12 includes blocking from public schools, public humiliation that prevents him from getting a job, and having no children of his own. Ever. Now, he's 29 (17 years later). I don't think that at that 29, I felt the same way about anything I felt when I was 12 years old, especially with regards to sexuality.

Those offenses are describing a single scenario where a 12 year old asked (or directed), someone under 16 to touch him, and actually touched THEM in some way determined to be sexual. The sheer fact that this occurred, would land the "sexual assault" charge.Then later it's possible he told the victim to not tell on them, in a threatening manner, apparently with some sort of weapon at hand.

I say "later" because the charge wasn't "sexual assault with a weapon", which under Canadian law means that it was a separate event somehow. For the record, it also wasn't "causing bodily harm" so I guess he didn't actually use the weapon in question, or it was a pretty lame weapon to begin with.

Granted, the guy has other issues in his life, primarily stemming from this assault, it would seem. However, when you now take this story, and apply it to a scenario where some kid maliciously lies about an attack of this nature.. you can see that there's something(s) wrong with the system.

I agree that he doesn't seem like the ideal parent in the making, but if he had agreed to take those tests, and scored reasonably higher than a sociopath or something, I'd like to think that at least his ability to have children of his own would be restored, but this doesn't seem to be the case... or am I missing something?

"He's now an unemployed labourer currently living under house arrest at a roadside motel."

After all the other atrocities in his history, all I needed to read was this to understand why they took his child away. There's nothing wrong with being temporarily unemployed but i doubt that's the case here. He insists he hasn't done anything wrong since his youth-diddling youth. Why is he currently under house arrest while lacking the house?

xanadian:Car_Ramrod: There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

This is pretty much what I'm stuck on. They doomed him from the get-go. Blame Canada, indeed.

Also...what, exactly, DID the guy do at 12? Or dare I ask?

/they listed the charges, but not what he actually DID

"But his record shows otherwise, with him having been convicted of sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, assault with a weapon, sexual interference and uttering threats."

Obviously this is speculation and IANAL, but I'm going to look at this from the perspective of the time it happened, not modern interpretations (we've all seen the threads here where patting someone on the butt is sexual assault, but that's a relatively new thing).

Sexual assault = probably at least groped someone, if not holding them down or something like that. Invitation, I've never heard that one, but maybe luring another kid into the situation? Assault with a weapon - pretty explanatory, and 17 years ago probably at least something like a large stick or bat. Uttering threats - probably pretty crazy stuff to have it included in a 12 YO's record. Basically I get a major Eric Smith vibe off this guy... and coincidentally that happened just a couple of years before this guy's record started. *shudder*

fickenchucker:Don't see a problem here--except maybe not forcing sterilization on him. If he's to be never trusted around babies, why is he allowed to make them?

A big touchy gropey punchy pile of THIS. All he has to do is not have the baby at the hospital or have his `wife` go to any pre natal checkups (and I can imagine these people doing that if they were smart enough to think of it) and BINGO.

/Is gropey a real word? Not sure but I`ve heard it used plenty of times `they are a bit gropey`

OtherLittleGuy:Because of his sex crimes, he was banned from attending high school and instead took correspondence courses, alone at the kitchen table in the group home. He gave up after Grade 9. "You'd think they'd want me interacting with other human beings, learning how to act properly and respect people."

"And in other news, four pre-teens were arrested and charged as adults in possession of child pornograhy for sexting each other....."

If the pictures were of themselves, then you can't charge them as adults. Because if they're adults then there's no child porn, and thus nothing to charge them with. Ta-dah!

megarian:dv-ous: Goddammit... I could have sworn the article said he diddled a baby at 12...

Oh well. A post with a picture of Cindy Crawford is never wasted.

I immediately had that impression, too. Mostly because they insinuated that the concern was for their newborn baby. But then I read the entire article and went back and now I have no idea why I had that impression to begin with.

I got the impression that it was something like that too. Like he was a danger to the babies directly, but the rest of the article made me feel pretty confident that no matter how old his victim was, the children were in for a very unfortunate upbringing if they stayed with him and his common law wife. Plus, the article indicates that the last three kids were taken away at the hospital, so it sounds like the first one might have been taken home by these winners at some point.

The sex offense was probably just the official excuse because citing it was easier than trudging through the arguments about exactly how filthy or dead-animal-ridden a house has to be before the kids have to leave, or how many DV convictions are necessary before it can be considered unsafe. I have a feeling that if this guy had a clean, animal-free residence, was employed, and hadn't any issues with the law after the age of 12, this wouldn't be happening. (Mind you, the fact that he wasn't allowed to go to school anywhere after his conviction ... there had to be some better option than "Here's a stack of books, good luck!")

Darth_Lukecash:xanadian: Car_Ramrod: There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

This is pretty much what I'm stuck on. They doomed him from the get-go. Blame Canada, indeed.

Also...what, exactly, DID the guy do at 12? Or dare I ask?

/they listed the charges, but not what he actually DID

They couldn't even keep pets alive. And if the pet died, they didn't even know how to throw them away!

Courts are right. The previous charges were just icing on the cake.

Seems like the age 12 thing is the least of the issue. Or as this post says:

Lionel Mandrake:Sounds like he lost the kids for what he's been doing, beginning at age 12.

Lollipop165:I'm kinda torn on this one - they haven't even had the chance to parent.

But that being said I understand why the government would feel its in the best interest of their children. These guys certainly haven' had a good track record.

I don't think you read the whole article. Start reading and it's "this is an outrage", by 1/3 through it's "oh I'm torn" then the dead animals start to show up in the story, the jail, the house arrest, the homelessness, the substance abuse. Yeah no. Even take away the sex offense and it's a clear case.

Yea, without knowing what he did at age 12 it's kind of hard to hate him. Knowing how he hasn't taken the initiative to improve his position, though, makes it kind of hard to sympathize with him. AKA: He sounds fat, lazy, and stupid. Sterilize him and any sad excuse for a woman who would marry him.

Car_Ramrod:Because of his sex crimes, he was banned from attending high school and instead took correspondence courses, alone at the kitchen table in the group home. He gave up after Grade 9. "You'd think they'd want me interacting with other human beings, learning how to act properly and respect people."

There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

We've had a problem here in California since at least the early nineties with registered sex offenders erroneously being recorded as having committed their crimes against victims under 14 years of age. Those who can afford lawyers can get it fixed. Those who can't, find they can not get any sort of employment, except drug dealing, burglary, etc. This came up in a third-strike hearing I read recently. The appellent wanted his strikes counted as non-strikes as he had no other way to support himself besides crime. (Didn't work for him. He got life.)

Car_Ramrod:I understand all the reasons why they're taking his kids away, and he should probably stop having them until he gets his life back together. However, I will say this:

Because of his sex crimes, he was banned from attending high school and instead took correspondence courses, alone at the kitchen table in the group home. He gave up after Grade 9. "You'd think they'd want me interacting with other human beings, learning how to act properly and respect people."

There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

The system he would have been charged under has been replaced, so it's quite possible that the sentencing would no longer include such things. I am, however, far too lazy to research just what the penalty would be today.